INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for
a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, September 5, 2000, in the Council
Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following
results: Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, and
HINDMAN were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various
Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of August 21, 2000, were
approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second
by Mrs. Crockett.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Upon her request, Mr. Campbell made the motion that Mrs. Crockett
be allowed to abstain from voting on B272-00. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously
by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Janku and a second by Mr. Campbell.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor Hindman asked that all of the budget related items be
read at the same time. He noted that these bills would be held over until the
next meeting, at which time they would be discussed again and voted on.
B281-00 Amending Chapter 20 of the
Code to establish Planning Department processing fees; amending
Chapter
29 of the Code relating to the processing fee for rezoning requests.
B282-00 Amending Chapter 27 of the City
Code relating to water services size and installation fees.
B283-00 Amending Chapter 15 of the Code
as it relates to warrant fees.
B284-00 Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code
as it relates to animal control services fees.
B285-00 Amending Chapter 11 of the City
Code as it relates to fees for public health services.
B286-00 Establishing Parks and Recreation
fees.
B287-00 Amending Chapters 6 and 22 of
the Code relating to fees of rental unit inspections and sign permits.
B288-00 Adopting the Columbia Special
Business District FY 2001 Budget.
B226-00 Adopting the FY 2001 Budget.
All of the above bills were read by the Clerk.
When considering budget strategy with the Council, Mr. Beck
reported that they discussed what percentage of services being rendered and expended
should be recovered by the City. He noted the Council had asked that staff review
fee schedules to determine if the amounts currently being charged are still applicable.
He explained guidelines were established as to the amount of money it was believed
should be recovered. As a result, Mr. Beck said a series of these ordinances
deal with revenues that could be generated with adjusted service fees. It was
estimated that approximately $350,000 would be generated for the General Fund
if the proposed fee increases are approved by the Council. Mr. Beck briefly explained
the amendments being recommended.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing on all of the above
bills.
David Johnston, 2701 Chambray Road, Chair of the Community
Development Commission, explained their recommendations and how these had been
arrived at. He remarked that the Commission held two public hearings before making
their recommendation. Mr. Johnston noted that this year they received the largest
number of applications to date, which as in the past, far exceeded the estimated
entitlement amount of $1 million.
Kathleen Cain, 603 Westwood, Chair of the Community Services
Advisory Commission, explained that they received requests from 35 agencies for
over 50 programs. She noted that the Commission's recommendations could be found
in the report that had been sent to the Council. Ms. Cain thanked the Council
for their support of social services in this community.
Mayor Hindman thanked the Community Development Commission
and the Community Services Advisory Commission for all of the work they do throughout
the year.
Fred Springsteel, 311 Longfellow Lane, thought health related
fees should be kept to a minimum. He was in favor of raising fees, but asked
that it be done fairly.
Tina Hubbs, 112 Anderson, spoke on behalf of the grant application
from the NewWave Corporation, KOPN Radio Station. She asked that their proposal
be considered very carefully. Ms. Hubbs noted that KOPN has been broadcasting
for 27 years. For a vast period of that time span, she said they have had issues
and allowed minority populations and other under-served populations access to
the air waves that are not available elsewhere. Ms. Hubbs explained that this
funding request would allow KOPN to upgrade their facility. Approximately 10
people stood in support of the request.
Mary Ann Holmstrom, 1201 Paquin, a member of the Columbia
Housing Authority, spoke to CHA's request for CDBG funds to be used to install
fire suppression systems in both Paquin and Oak Towers. She outlined the reasoning
behind the request.
Doris Chiles, Executive Director of the Columbia Housing Authority,
also spoke to the need for fire suppression sprinkler systems in both Paquin
and Oak Towers. She noted that CHA receives grant funds from HUD for physical
and management improvements, but because these buildings are so old, it takes
the majority of these funds just to maintain the developments in a safe condition.
Ms. Chiles indicated CHA had already obtained $600,000 in grant funding. If CHA
does not receive the $200,000 being recommended by the Commission, a sprinkler
system will only be installed in Paquin for now. She stated the Oak Towers project
would be delayed a couple of years until the remaining funds can be obtained
to install a system in this building. Ms. Chiles stated that if the Council approves
the $200,000 recommended by the Commission, 100% of the funds will be used to
assist elderly and disabled individuals.
Mr. Campbell asked about the total cost to install the suppression
systems in both buildings. Ms. Chiles replied that the engineers had estimated
the cost to be $800,000.
Dave Silverman, 304 Sanford, described a drive-by shooting
which occurred in his neighborhood early yesterday afternoon. He asked about
a budgetary allowance for speed limit reductions on his street. Mr. Silverman
also said he would like to see some sort of citizen recourse against landlords
who rent to known actively criminal elements.
Mr. John remarked that the Public Works Department has a program
in place to evaluate streets with speeding problems. He suggested that Mr. Silverman
call that office. Regarding the rental issue, Mr. John noted that the Police
Department is working with many of the landlord and apartment owner associations
to assist them in strengthening their leases. He spoke about the difficulty in
evicting people.
Linda Rootes, 807 N. Eighth, President of the Board of Directors
for the North Central Columbia Neighborhood Association, reported that this neighborhood
has been the recipient of Community Development Block Grant funds that had been
utilized for many improvements to this area. She noted Sixth Street is the last
street left to be reconstructed in North Central, and added that it is obvious
that their infrastructure needs are coming together. Ms. Rootes stated residents
are now faced with removing the other barriers to redevelopment in the neighborhood.
In order to develop an overlay ordinance, the neighborhood needs to arrive at
a consensus on what kind of outcomes they are looking for in order to develop
an ordinance. Part of this involves learning how to encourage private investment
in the neighborhood. Ms. Rootes indicated that residents are appreciative of
the support for their planning initiative.
Lois Shelton, Executive Director of the Boone County Council
on Aging, spoke on behalf of the Senior Home Maintenance Project. Although the
Council on Aging is the central agency, she noted this program is being administered
with the participation of the Voluntary Action Center, the City Health Department,
and the Human Development Corporation. Ms. Shelton reported this request involves
funding for supplies used by volunteers to provide the labor for minor home repairs.
She noted that they are in the process of applying to the Corporation for Public
Service for a Vista Volunteer who would specifically work with this program.
Ms. Crayton asked how this organization targets lower income
seniors who do not show up on any lists. Ms. Shelton said that is a problem,
but if people know of someone fitting in that category, these individuals should
be directed to their agency.
Reverend William Young, 3901 St. Charles Road, President and
CEO of Columbia Enterlight Ministries, explained his request for CDBG funding
and shared two Best Practice Awards his agency received from HUD. Reverend Young
distributed to the Council a report pertaining to this issue.
Ben Orzeski, 507 High, a landlord, commented on the rental
inspection fees proposal. He asked if the fee increase would be used to expand
the level of services provided by Protective Inspection. Mr. Orzeski indicated
that he had been told the level of service would remain the same. Mr. Beck replied
the costs had been separated, other than for the construction industry, so additional
revenues would not be subsidizing other inspections of homeowner housing. Mr.
Orzeski remarked that his experience with the Protective Inspection Office has
been positive with regard to his property. His only concern with the office was
that he thought there are a lot of rental properties that do not comply with
City code requirements. He wanted to see efforts made in identifying those properties
being rented without proper certification.
Mr. John thought there was an effort being made to identify
the properties, but he acknowledged there are some that slip through the cracks.
Mr. Coffman pointed out that the purpose of the proposed increases
is to try to maintain a certain level of recovery of expenses with 75% being
the goal. He said rental inspection fees are just a little over 50%. At the pre-Council
meeting this evening, Mr. Coffman explained that they discussed the need for
additional resources being used to support neighborhood response teams which
would identify rental problems.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, Vice-President of the North Central
Columbia Neighborhood Association, spoke to the $35,143 funding request for the
Field North Central Community Renovation Project. He passed out informational
data. The Association, on behalf of itself and its partner CMCHDC, requested
that full funding be approved for Phase I of their project budget. Their preference
was that the funds come from the 1999 reallocation. Mr. Clark explained the project.
Susan Roberts, 601 Westwood, spoke about the philosophy of
giving a 25% discount to seniors playing golf. She maintained that seniors are
shown to have more income in relation to the population of people with children.
Ms. Roberts expressed concern about raising the junior fee for golf when considering
the importance of recreation for children. As a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission, she reminded the Council that they were sent two memos last year
recommending that the Police force be increased. The recommendation specifically
related to traffic enforcement and establishing a traffic union. Ms. Roberts
reported the Council had been resent the memo when the Commission forwarded their
recommendation regarding the crossings policy.
Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to the next meeting.
B263-00 Authorizing the installation
of water main along Parklawn Court, Texas Avenue, Sondra Avenue and
Doris
Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is an upgrade project in the
Parkade Subdivision in which some of the older water lines are being replaced
in conjunction with a storm sewer project. Mr. Beck noted the larger mains will
enhance fire protection in the area.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B263-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B272-00 Rezoning property located on
the south side of Smiley Lane approximately 1,000 feet west of Rangeline
Street
from C-3 to R-1.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the request on this 14.7 acre tract
was recommended for approval by both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Bill Crockett, an engineer with offices at 2608 N. Stadium,
spoke on behalf of Steve Herigon Construction Company, the owner and applicant.
Mr. Crockett offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B272-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
OLD BUSINESS
B217-00 Amending Chapter 14 of the Code
to restrict parking on the south side of Clarkson Road.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the parking situation on this 32 foot
street has been before the Council on several occasions. He noted that the Public
Works staff is not recommending that parking be removed from the south side as
was requested. Mr. Beck reported the current request is to prohibit parking on
the south side of the street between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Rod Stevens, an attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh, spoke
on behalf of Betty Wynfield, Ed Blaine, and Jane Young, all duplex owners on
Clarkson Road. He reported that parking on the south side of Clarkson has been
restricted from 2:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for at least ten years, possibly twenty.
In 1998, Mr. Stevens explained that the Council considered removing the restriction,
but his clients were never advised that the matter was going before the Council.
He believed the restriction was meant to apply to only duplexes, but ended up
applying to the entire south side of the street. His clients did not have an
opportunity to speak in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Stevens complained
that his clients have a hard time accessing their property at times because of
all of the students parking on the street. If the restriction is reimposed, he
said the students living in the area can simply use their driveways.
Ed Blaine, 4E Clarkson Road, explained that he lives in half
of his condo and rents out the other half. He spoke in support of reinstating
the parking regulations. Mr. Blaine said the lease he uses requires that there
only be two cars per unit -- one car can park in the garage and the other in
the driveway.
Jane Young, 6E Clarkson Road, another duplex owner renting
out the other side of her building, spoke in favor of restricting the parking
regulations. She wanted the neighborhood to be rid of the trash, the profanity,
and their driveways being blocked. Ms. Young believed the current parking situation
has allowed the neighborhood to deteriorate.
Betty Wynfield, another owner living at 12E Clarkson Road,
said that parking had been restricted for two decades on Clarkson, Burnham, and
throughout the Grasslands area. For all those years, people have parked in their
driveways and garages. She said the accommodation made in 1998 was made for non-residential
owners and it has not worked. Ms. Wynfield stated those accommodations have impacted
the people who live and own property in the area. She noted that it is difficult
to entertain in her home as guests have no place to park. Ms. Wynfield believed
the interests of the neighborhood should be paramount in that they have support
from the Grasslands Association. She entered into the record a letter from former
Council member Kruse asking that the parking be returned to what it was. Ms.
Wynfield reported that residents are willing to wait until August 1, 2001, for
the parking restriction to go into effect in an effort to be accommodating.
Dan Ruether, 811 Sycamore Lane, spoke on behalf of a duplex
owner on Clarkson Road who lives out of state. He said that person also owns
more undeveloped property on Clarkson Road that will be developed for multi-family
residential use in the future. Mr. Ruether explained that the existing unit has
a very steep driveway that complied with building codes at the time it was built.
He said a resident of the dwelling in 1997 had written to Mr. Kruse requesting
that the ordinance be addressed. Through the proper channels, Mr. Ruether said
the residents were notified, a survey was performed, and in January of 1998 the
Council voted to lift the ordinance. If suitable parking is not allowed, he explained
that it will be difficult to find tenants for those units. Mr. Ruether asked
that the Council follow the staff recommendation and make no changes to the current
parking situation.
John Ott, 212 Bingham Road, President of the Grasslands Neighborhood
Association, commented that this topic had come up a few weeks ago at a neighborhood
meeting. He said the ordinance has created some problems for the owner-occupied
residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Ott stated these individuals believe their
property values are being deflated. He explained that the Association voted in
favor of the previous ordinance with the parking restriction.
Steve Kellerman, 8A Clarkson Road, spoke about the steepness
of the driveway at the duplex in which he lives. He said it is very hard on the
cars that have to park there. He asked that the ordinance remain as is.
Jason Cloveno, 8E Clarkson Road, also said the steep grade
of the driveway made parking almost impossible. He noted that icy conditions
only worsen the situation. Mr. Cloveno pointed out that if two vehicles park
in the driveway, the second one would block the sidewalk.
Ryan Burkhart, 8A Clarkson Road, reiterated the previous comments
regarding the conditions of the driveway.
Robert Rogers, 8E Clarkson Road, spoke against changing the
ordinance. He said he purposely parks on the street so as to not block-in his
roommates.
Mr. John explained that the initial request submitted to the
Council a couple of years ago involved prohibiting parking from in front of two
of the residences. However, when Public Works reviewed the situation, they determined
this would be hard to enforce and suggested removing parking from the entire
side of the street. The neighborhood association was not aware of the change
(from in front of two properties to the whole side of the street) so they did
not speak in opposition. Therefore, the parties notified were told something
different than what was actually passed. Mr. John noted that the original petitioners,
except for one, were all renters and none of them still live in the neighborhood.
He thought it was only fair to put it back to the way it had been for years.
Mr. John indicated he would have no objection to allow a parking space in front
of the two properties with steep driveways. He thought the owners' offer to make
the effective date August 1, 2001, was more than fair.
Mr. Campbell noted that the driveways have been steep for
a long time -- even when the parking was restricted. He was aware of a change
in usage over time, but he did not think the Council should make their decision
based upon the desire to maximize profits for a limited number of landowners.
Mr. Janku made the motion that B217-00 be amended by changing
the effective date to August 1, 2001. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and
approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mrs. Crockett felt the date change was fair and she hoped
the landlord will let the next tenants know that there will be no parking on
that side of the street if this bill is passed.
B217-00, as amended, was read with the vote recorded as follows:
VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B261-00 Conveying Southmark Development,
Inc. property to the City; authorizing dissolution of Southmark
Development,
Inc.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is the site for Fire Station
#8. He said this legislation would complete the transaction for the property.
B261-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B262-00 Authorizing an amendment to
agreement with Sverdrup Facilities to include the design of the larger
version
of the Community Recreation Center.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that a public hearing had been held on this
matter and noted that the architect is now in the process of working on final
plans and specifications. The question came up as to whether or not it should
incorporate a future gym/fitness area and the Council, committee and staff discussed
that earlier. The feeling was that they should go ahead with the detailed plans
and bid some alternatives with the thought that it would be more cost effective
to design it all at the same time. The estimated cost to expand the design would
be about $56,000. Mr. Beck reported the goal is to raise the funds for the alternatives
privately.
B262-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B264-00 Amending Chapter 14 of the
Code to prohibit parking along the south side of Calvert Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that a request had been received to remove
parking off the south side of Calvert and on Nelwood. The staff recommended that
parking be prohibited on only one side of Calvert and that Nelwood be left as
is. Mr. Beck pointed out the commercial traffic on this dead end street created
safety concerns.
Mr. Montgomery noted that when staff evaluated the parking
situation on Calvert Drive, it was determined that the large commercial vehicles
were having trouble maneuvering vehicles in and out of their driveways. He noted
the south side of the street has several driveways on it, so the parking loss
would not be as great as it would be if parking were removed from the north side.
He summarized the staff's recommendation was to remove parking from the south
side of Calvert and then to keep monitoring the situation. Mr. Montgomery noted
that future action may be needed in relation to parking on Nelwood.
B264-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B266-00 Amending Chapter 22 of the
Code relating to refuse collection.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the City has a couple of drop-off
points for yard waste that have been used for a number of years. He reported
that it has been observed that some commercial landscaping and tree services
are using the sites to avoid the tipping fee at the landfill. This amendment
will allow staff to enforce what type of materials can be taken to the sites
so it will be limited to residential use only.
B266-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B270-00 Authorizing change orders to
the contract with Prost Builders, Inc. for the renovation of the Armory
Building.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that these change orders represent an increase
of $208,032.34 to the contract. The additional work approved by the Council incorporated
new windows, exterior repair and roof replacement. He noted a detailed report
was provided in the agenda packet explaining item by item costs involved in the
project. Mr. Beck reported that proposals for this work had been received from
other contractors to ensure that the costs assessed to the City were appropriate.
B270-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B271-00 Voluntary annexation of property located
generally north of State Route K and southeast of Old Plank
Road.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this tract is approximately 20 acres in
size. He explained there was a pre-annexation agreement and now the tract is
contiguous to the City. Under the agreement, the property owners are obliged
to annex into the City.
Gene Basinger, an engineer with offices at 300 St. James Street,
spoke on behalf of the major property owner. He noted a subdivision has been
developed on the property which was built to city specifications. Mr. Basinger
offered to answer any questions.
B271-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B275-00 Approving the final plat of
Frank C. Barnes Subdivision, Plat 1; granting a variance from the
Subdivision
Regulations; authorizing a performance contract.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this issue had come to the Council on
a tie vote from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Dudark explained if the Council chooses to approve this
plat, staff would suggest that a couple of conditions be made. The first condition
involves the front yard setback from Smiley Lane so it would be comparable to
the existing homes adjacent to these lots. The other condition applied to the
common driveway for the two houses and that a turnaround must be provided for
each lot to allow for a safer entrance and exit onto Smiley Lane.
Gene Basinger, surveyor with offices at 300 St. James Street,
spoke on behalf of Mr. Turner, the property owner. He explained that the issue
related to the front setback had been addressed in the restrictive covenants.
He noted this condition can be included on the plat. In addition, Mr. Basinger
said there would not be a problem stipulating the driveway turnaround on the
plat as well. Regarding the driveway access for which a variance is being requested,
Mr. Basinger said there is a driveway that is considered a grandfathered use
which provides access to the tract. He reported the applicant is asking to have
a common drive when dividing the tract into two lots. He commented on the neighbor's
concerns about this project changing the character of the area. Mr. Basinger
argued that the smaller lot would be over 11,000 square feet. It was his opinion
that the character of the neighborhood has already changed tremendously with
the commercial and industrial developments that exist in the area.
Frank C. Barnes, II, grandson of the man who developed the
subdivision, explained that he lives on the remaining 26 acres of the family
farm that adjoins the north side of the proposed lots. Mr. Barnes gave the history
of the area. He believed what Mr. Turner wants to do is inconsistent with the
existing structures. As far as the statement about residents being surrounded
by commercial and industrial businesses, he noted there is buffer zoning running
the entire length, east and west, in front of the houses. Regarding the restrictive
covenants being proposed by Mr. Turner, he argued that they cannot be enforced
by the City or by the current residents. Mr. Barnes commented if the City approves
this request, it will require a variance to the City's ordinance to allow for
access to a collector street.
Shirley Bishop, 1117 E. Smiley, explained that she lives on
the west side of the property in question. She was concerned about the proposed
appearance of the two homes and their lack of uniformity with the others in the
neighborhood. Ms. Bishop also expressed concern that the development will devalue
her property.
Mr. Janku responded that the Council could not deal with the
uniformity issue; however, he thought the major issue to consider involves granting
access to collector streets, and the standards and consistency set by this Council.
He suggested that the plat be denied. When the applicant submits a variance request
for a single driveway for one house, Mr. Janku said the Council could most likely
support that.
Mr. Campbell noted that the lots being proposed would be relatively
narrow and he did not believe a functional driveway turnaround would be possible.
B275-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CROCKETT. VOTING NO: CRAYTON, JANKU, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. Bill defeated.
B276-00 Approving the Bearfield Meadows
PUD Site Plan; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5-4 in favor of the request. He also noted that an amendment sheet had been prepared
and asked Mr. Boeckmann to explain it.
Mr. Boeckmann related that the project engineer had come to
his office with proposed language to amend the Council bill dealing with two
issues; detention ponds and the impervious area. The present design calls for
four dry detention ponds. The proposal is to change the two larger ponds to wet
cells. Mr. Boeckmann remarked the only change that he made to the project engineer's
proposed amendment related to the wet ponds being built to Green County Storm
Water Design Standards. He indicated that he added language reading, "or other
appropriate standards as determined by the Director of Public Works." Mr. Boeckmann
pointed out that the current plan calls for a maximum of 30% impervious area
with the issue being how to make that enforceable. The proposal was that it be
made the responsibility of the Public Works Department. After speaking to Mr.
Montgomery, Mr. Boeckmann said Mr. Gebhardt's proposal was changed further to
include that a plot plan must be presented when each of the lots are developed.
Under the proposed amendment, the person seeking the building permit would have
to state the square footage of impervious area. In addition, before a certificate
of occupancy could be issued, the owner of the property must provide the Public
Works Department with a statement of the actual amount of impervious area on
the lot. Mr. Boeckmann reported this statement would have to be certified by
a licensed professional engineer.
Regarding the plot plans, Mr. Janku asked what would happen
if someone wanted to, at a later date, build or expand a deck or put in some
sort of improvement that requires a building permit. He asked if the homeowner
would have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Boeckmann indicated he did
not believe that would have to occur, but he did think any additions to a lot
would have to be calculated into the amount of impervious area for the entire
development. He indicated that he could foresee that the person owning the last
few undeveloped lots might find that all of the impervious area has already been
taken.
Mr. Campbell made the motion that B276-00 be amendment per
the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
Mr. Janku asked if it would be a legislative determination
by the Council to amend the plan if someone wanted to make improvements as opposed
to going to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. John thought it would a revision of
the PUD which would require approval by the Planning Director if it is a minor
revision, or by the Planning Commission and Council if it were a major revision.
The motion to amend B276-00, made by Mr. Campbell, seconded
by Mayor Hindman, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Jay Gebhardt, civil engineer with Allstate Consultants, explained
his interpretation of the impervious area. He explained that Public Works will
be provided with the initial amount of impervious area from the builder when
a permit prior to occupancy is acquired. He said a professional engineer will
have to go out to the site and verify that what was actually built is what was
shown on the plan. This individual would then certify to what was actually built
and present it to Public Works so a certificate of occupancy could be issued.
Mr. Gebhardt pointed out that it would be in everyone's best interest that all
the lots be developed. Toward that end, he said they were going to limit the
footprint in the restrictive covenants to be quite a bit smaller than what the
average could be to allow for changes.
Mr. Gebhardt explained the detention ponds would be common
areas to the subdivision with access from the neighborhood. He stated each lot
will have a minimum of a 10-foot drainage easement along the side and back. Mr.
Gebhardt noted that the drainage easements are an important element to give the
City some control in how the lots are graded.
Mr. Gebhardt reported the PUD plan shows that the streets
are being designed to be 28 feet wide, and they are asking for a variance from
the subdivision regulations to allow for that. Also shown in the plan is a bulb
which will be a permanent cul-de-sac bulb, but it will also have a stub on it.
They believed this was a proper solution to the idea of having to provide a temporary
turnaround. Mr. Gebhardt noted that some concern had been expressed about sight
distance problems relating to ingress and egress from this development to Bearfield
Road. He indicated that he checked into this issue and commented there is no
serious problems with such.
Using a schematic, Mr. Gebhardt described the four-bay, pre-sedimentation
basin. He explained where the water would enter first to enable the larger silt
to drop out of suspension so as to not contaminate the rest of the pond. He showed
the location of a structure inside the detention pond to be used for water quality
control. Mr. Gebhardt noted documentation is available which verifies that wet
detention provides better treatment for pollution removal than dry detention
does. He said this type of system was not included on the two front detention
areas because drainage to those areas will be very small. Mr. Gebhardt reported
those cells would be susceptible to silting and maintenance problems if they
were converted to wet ponds because they would dry up frequently.
Mr. Janku asked if it is known what percentage of drainage
would go into which ponds. Mr. Gebhardt answered ten percent will go into each
pond. Mr. Janku questioned how the grades would be maintained after the homeowner
has moved in and puts in a garden or something similar. Mr. Gebhardt responded
that by creating drainage easements, they are hoping to send a message that the
lot was developed to include this drainage area and the homeowner should not
be putting in a fence or a raised garden that could block the flow. He did not
know how to address this problem because it is not associated with the water
quality issues of this development, but a problem common to every single residential
neighborhood that exists in the City of Columbia.
Regarding the statement of intent that was submitted at the
time the rezoning request was approved, Mr. Gebhardt explained that they were
supposed to meet the current discharge, or the pre-development discharge for
the two, ten, and twenty-five year storms. The detention that has been designed
meets and exceeds that intent in some cases by almost half of what was allowed.
He noted that he cut the flow by making the detentions larger than what they
need to be. Mr. Gebhardt believed every single condition set forth in the statement
of intent has been met or exceeded.
Mr. Janku asked when the ponds would be built. Mr. Gebhardt
responded these will be constructed first. At the time the certificate of occupancy
is issued, Mr. Stohldrier will be responsible for installing the water quality
structures inside the detention basin. The reason for not putting them in at
the beginning is because construction sites have a lot of silt. Mr. Gebhardt
stated there will be 128 homes in the subdivision, and between the time when
the 86th and 100th certificate of occupancy is granted, they will be responsible
for cleaning the ponds out and getting them approved by Public Works.
Mrs. Crockett asked if any consideration had been given to
fencing around the wet cells. Mr. Gebhardt indicated these were designed so as
to be more aesthetically pleasing. As far as keeping kids out of it, he noted
there will be a very shallow area that extends ten feet around the edge of the
water. Mr. Gebhardt reported that cattails or other such plants will be put in
this area. He commented the thought behind this is that those types of water
plants tend to keep pets and people out. Mrs. Crockett said with the number of
homes planned for this subdivision, there are bound to be small children. Mr.
Gebhardt agreed there are liability issues that need to be considered.
Don Stohldrier, the developer of the property, addressed some
of the concerns mentioned in Mr. Patterson's memo. Regarding the impervious area
and how to track it, he thought the amendment would guarantee that it will be
done. He noted he would be responsible for preparing the restrictive covenants.
Mr. Stohldrier indicated that the owner of the lots will have to submit plans
to him prior to building a house. He said they would be tracking it along with
Public Works to make sure they know where things are at any given time. Mr. Stohldrier
assured the Council that he would make it his business to see that when the majority
of the lots have been developed within the subdivision, that he would not have
to donate five lots to the City as a park.
Regarding non-structural best management practices on education,
Mr. Stohldrier spoke about two publications recommended by Jim Davis for education
on household waste, pesticides, the use of such, etc. His plan to assist in the
implementation portion of that is to provide each builder with a packet containing
information relating to water quality in addition to a copy of the restrictive
covenants. He indicated this information will be given at the time the lot is
purchased. Through a recorded document, Mr. Stohldrier stated that each subsequent
owner of the property will be given a copy of the same documents and required
to sign a form stating that they have received such. He said the Title Company
will pick that up on each title search as the houses are sold.
Mr. Stohldrier acknowledged that he had not given staff a
copy of these documents yet. He reported that he could have a draft set sent
to Public Works within two to three weeks. He remarked that he would ensure that
the restrictive covenants and documents would be agreed upon prior to the sale
of any lots. Mr. Stohldrier thought that doing this at the time of final platting
would be too restrictive for him. He said if a separate document is required,
he would agree that no lots would be sold until the agreement is worked out to
everybody's satisfaction.
Relating to builder education and enforcement, Mr. Stohldrier
felt those issues were best handled by Protective Inspection. He said if builders
need to be educated, all of them should be, not just the one's that will be working
in Bearfield Meadows.
In regards to the maintenance of the small swales and Mr.
Patterson's suggestion that these be in place prior to construction of the houses,
Mr. Stohldrier believed that would be next to impossible to do. He noted the
swales are in permanent easements, and the City has all the tools and resources
to maintain them and make sure nothing is built in them. Mr. Stohldrier remarked
that he would be happy to file a document with the homeowners's association that
advises residents that there are easements around their house, and the grading
within these cannot be changed once the City has inspected it. In addition, the
document could stipulate that no buildings or fences would be allowed within
the easements.
About the concern of the long-term maintenance of the detention
structures, Mr. Stohldrier said they have talked about adding to the restrictive
covenants a requirement that would make the developer responsible for the construction
and maintenance of the detention systems until the issuance of the 100th certificate
of occupancy. He explained that should get the subdivision substantially complete
and would also tie into the phase that he has in the construction scheduling
that says when they would have all of the structures in. Mr. Stohldrier noted
that would put the burden on himself to maintain the ponds until that point.
After that, these would be inspected by the City, if necessary, so as to determine
that they are fully operational and then the ponds would be turned over to the
homeowner's association for their maintenance. During the construction phase,
the ponds would be used as silt or detention basins. On the two wet cells, Mr.
Stohldrier stated they would only be using the pre-sediment area to filter out
some of the construction settlements. In the four-bay area, they discussed the
possibility of constructing a couple of dams with two sets of rocks so as to
ensure the sediment goes through several steps before going into the detention
systems. Mr. Stohldrier reported the silt will be taken out of the smaller ponds
after the 86th certificate of occupancy is issued. At this point, the small detention
structures Mr. Gebhardt spoke about earlier would be installed.
Mr. Stohldrier indicated that Mr. Patterson's summary listed
a recommendation that the entire site be graded. He assumed this referred to
all easements, side yards, backyards -- everything graded and seeded. Mr. Stohldrier
did not see a benefit to doing that. He noted this would disrupt a lot of the
existing vegetation and create a worse sediment problem. When the builder comes
in and begins constructing homes, much of this work will be torn up and the lot
will have to be regraded. He did not know how anyone could possibly grade yards
for 128 homes in advance of them being built. Mr. Stohldrier stated that every
one of the yards will be inspected by Public Works prior to the issuance of an
occupancy permit. The second recommendation made by Mr. Patterson was that building
permits be limited to ten at any given time. Mr. Stohldrier remarked that would
be overly restrictive. He said it would drag the subdivision out over a development
period of six to eight years which would take away any competitive edge he might
have.
Mr. Campbell noted that Mr. Stohldrier had said several times
that he would prepare documents before selling any lots. Mr. Stohldrier said
that was correct -- it would avoid getting a third person involved in any problems
that may arise. He said it would be between himself and the City and he would
sign a separate document agreeing to that. Mr. Campbell asked if he would feel
comfortable with another amendment stating that such a document would be prepared
before any lots were sold and approved by City staff. Mr. Stohldrier said that
is exactly what he will do, and he would not have a problem with a further amendment
in that respect. He commented that he will try to get a packet of all of the
documents he has talked about to Protective Inspection in about three weeks or
less.
Tony Davis, 4655 Rock Quarry Road, said a lot of very good
things have come about in the last year relating to this project, some of which
are above and beyond what the residents expected when this whole process first
started. He said the issues talked about this evening are very good if there
can be contracts, agreements, and things put in writing that the engineer and
the developer will agree to that are clearly understood. Mr. Davis did not think
it was prudent to move ahead too quickly and approve this plan until everyone
clearly understands those issues can be carried out. He admitted that he did
not quite understand all of it yet.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Montgomery his feelings about the amendment.
Mr. Montgomery said the amendment prepared today responds,
either partially or entirely, to a couple of concerns outlined in Mr. Patterson's
report of last week. He thought the wet extended ponds would do a better job
of filtering storm water run-off and come a lot closer to meeting their expectations
as to water quality than the dry cells would have. He concurred that to keep
the eastern small cells as dry cells would be appropriate. Regarding the enforcement
of the 30% impervious area, Mr. Montgomery believed what was arrived at, and
putting a good bit of the burden for the measurement and calculations on the
builder and submitting it prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy,
would allow staff and the developer to keep a running total. He said it should
be very accurate and the only room for changes would be if following the issuance
of the certificate of occupancy, someone installed a small non-permanent out
building, or added on to their patios or things that would not require a building
permit. He said there would probably be a little of that occurring which might
affect the overall sizing. Mr. Montgomery felt the plan was pretty well laid-out
to address the 30% impervious are. He thought the staff could work with it and
keep a running total.
In an attempt to respond to Mr. Davis, Mr. Montgomery said
as you read Mr. Patterson's report, there were issues tied into the original
letter of intent. He said there had been an unsettled feeling amongst the staff
that they just really were not sure how this would fall together -- what the
actual mechanics were and who is really going to be maintaining what during what
period of time. He remarked for the staff to get out there and have a multitude
of builders constructing homes, the City should have access to a contact person
who is responsible for taking care of maintenance issues as the project progresses.
Mr. Montgomery reported that by having those issues outlined in an agreement
with the developer, or in a restrictive covenant, should be able to provide staff
with that level of protection. He noted they need to have someone that can respond
to the City both during construction and following it. He said the suggestion
to have it prior to selling lots would probably be acceptable to staff. Mr. Montgomery
stated staff should be sent something in writing as soon as possible so it can
be reviewed by attorneys for both the City and the developer.
Mr. Campbell made the motion to further amend B276-00 by adding
a Section 3 to read as follows: "The developer shall prepare and record covenants
for the Bearfield Meadows P.U.D. acceptable to the City and shall enter into
an agreement with the City concerning the building and maintenance of water control
structures prior to the first lot being sold." The motion was seconded by Mrs.
Crockett
Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Montgomery if that would satisfy the
staff. Mr. Montgomery thought it would go a long way to describe the mechanisms
of maintenance so that enforcement action can be taken and to assure that maintenance
occurs during the construction phase, which is very critical.
Mr. Coffman said he had reservations and wished Mr. Patterson
were here to enjoy the discussion with the Council. He felt there was a consensus
that the Council was willing to accept what is in front of them, and perhaps
compromise a bit further because they understand the developer has been put at
a place in time where the City is trying to develop a policy for this watershed.
It was his preference to table the issue to allow more time for digestion and
thought.
The motion to further amend B276-00, made by Mr. Campbell,
seconded by Mrs. Crockett, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
With respect to the suggestions made by Mr. Patterson, Mr.
Janku commented that obviously if the standards adopted here do not work, although
there is no expectation they will not, there are steps that could be identified
for further development as it occurs in this area.
Mr. John noted this is a plan that addresses storm water management
issues. He pointed out that Columbia is not similar to St. Louis or Kansas City
where developers are of a size that would enable them to build 120 homes in a
season or two. In addition, if that were to occur, Mr. John said all the homes
would look the same. To try to restrict construction of homes to ten at a time
would stretch the development way out. Furthermore, to require that all of the
grading must be done in advance of construction would be counter to the stipulation
that no more than 10 homes be built at any one time. Mr. John did not think either
would be best for this development. He believed the best thing was to get the
storm water retention in place in advance of construction, and then stage by
stage add the infrastructure and make sure it is graded, seeded and strawed.
Mr. John noted that the City has rules and ways of managing erosion control.
He thought the silt retention ponds should protect the stream.
Mr. John believed this is a good plan and suggested that the
Council realize that they have stepped off the abyss as a City. He reported that
the Council has required storm water control and storm water management for this
project, and the Public Works Department and Protective Inspection Division will
ensure that those requirements are met and can be managed.
Mrs. Crockett agreed with Mr. John and said she thought the
grading should be done lot by lot. She said this developer and his engineer have
gone above and beyond what had been requested of them. Mrs. Crockett thought
it was time to let the developer get on with his business.
Mayor Hindman was pleased about the progress that has been
made. He felt a lot had been learned all the way around. Although the community
still needs to consider the sensitive nature of the watershed, Mayor Hindman
believed this plan was a step in the right direction. He remarked there will
be a lot more challenges in this area.
B276-00, as amended, was given third reading with the vote
recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B279-00 Authorizing antenna agreements
with various communications companies for lease of space on the
Shepard
water tower property.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained being proposed is a 190 foot monopole that
would allow for four cell phone companies to utilize the tower. He said these
companies would be paying the City about $60,000 per year for lease of the ground.
Mr. Beck reported these agreements are subject to approval of a height variance
by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Janku asked in which fund the money would go. Mr. Beck
said the money would go to the Water and Light Department because the tower would
be located on Water and Light property. The antennas on Fire Department property
go in the General Fund because the Fire Department is a general fund operation.
Don Mitchell, Devine Tower International with offices at 2810
LeMone Industrial Boulevard, explained that his company will be doing the infrastructure
build out for TeleCorp, who is the lead carrier. Mr. Mitchell offered to answer
any questions.
B279-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B280-00 Accepting a law Enforcement
Block Grant; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Chief Boehm explained that this is a federal local law enforcement
block grant. He noted this is the fourth year it has been available to the City.
He reported it is one of the few grants that enables his department to purchase
equipment. Chief Boehm indicated that most of the funding will go toward a scan
print system that would primarily do away with the old fingerprint ink. He said
fingerprints would be taken with a scan screen which would automatically read
the prints to ensure they are identifiable. These would then be sent to the Missouri
State Highway Patrol to be checked against other prints with a 24-hour turnaround.
B280-00 was given third reading with the vote recorded as
follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B311-00 Amending the local parks sales
tax ballot language in Ordinance No. 016564.
The bill was given first reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Boeckmann explained that when the ballot language was
prepared, he failed to include the words "for the municipality", which is the
prescribed language in the statute. He said this ordinance would change the ballot
language to include that and also change City of Columbia to "municipality of
Columbia".
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, remarked that he thought the
ballot language in its final form had to be submitted to the County Clerk by
August 29. He asked if this change was legal. Mr. Boeckmann explained that ballot
language has to be submitted 10 weeks before the election, but changes to such
can be made up to six weeks before the election with a court order. He indicated
that he would be pursuing a court order in the morning.
B311-00 was given second and third reading with the vote recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions
were read by the Clerk.
B260-00 Amending Chapter 2 of the Code
to reestablish a procedure to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
B265-00 Confirming the contract of Don
Schnieders Excavating Company for the construction of the Bear
Creek
Trail Phase I Bridge project.
B267-00 Authorizing the acquisition
of land necessary to construct Smith Drive from Windermere Drive west
1,600
feet.
B268-00 Authorizing an agreement with
the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission for funding
associated
with the construction of the Garth Avenue bridge over Bear Creek.
B269-00 Authorizing a right of use permit
with the University of Missouri to install a sewer line in a public
easement
on Parkade Boulevard.
B273-00 Vacating sanitary sewer easements located
within McKee Estates, Plat No. 1.
B274-00 Approving the final plat of
McKee Estates, Plat No. 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B277-00 Accepting easements for utility
purposes.
B278-00 Authorizing the Cedar Oak Mobile
Home Park to resell city water to the tenants of the mobile home
park.
R174-00 Setting a public hearing: water
main construction serving Spring Creek, Plat 1.
R175-00 Setting a public hearing: relocation
and upgrade of water main along Route B from Vandiver Drive to
Business
Loop 70.
R176-00 Setting a public hearing: the
FY 2001 Action Plan and an amendment to the FY 1999 Action Plan.
R177-00 Setting a public hearing: repainting
runway and taxiway markings at Columbia Regional Airport.
R178-00 Authorizing Amendment No. 3
to agreement with Horner & Shifrin, Inc. for engineering design
services
in connection with the Police Building Renovation Project.
R179-00 Authorizing an adopt a spot
agreement with Shelley Soligo.
R180-00 Renewing an agreement with the
Central Missouri Humane Society.
R181-00 Renewing an agreement with the
State of Missouri for the Maternal Child Health Program.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions
were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared
enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R182-00 Authorizing application for
FY 2000 STP Enhancement Funds.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that staff had previously discussed with
the Council the application for enhancement funds. Staff's recommendations are
for the MKT underpass at Providence and the Wabash Station Project.
The vote on R182-00 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CRAYTON,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, JOHN, COFFMAN, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
B289-00 Calling for bids for the repainting
of runway and taxiway markings at Columbia Regional Airport.
B290-00 Approving Change Order No. 1
and approving the engineer's final report for the construction of the
West
Ash Street Sidewalk Project.
B291-00 Approving Change Order A to
the contract with Huebert Builders, Inc. for the renovation of the Police
Building
Project.
B292-00 Approving change orders to the
contract with Huebert Builders, Inc. for the renovation of the Daniel
Boone
Building lobby.
B293-00 Authorizing a right of use permit
to allow the University of Missouri to install a storm sewer line within
the
University Avenue right of way.
B294-00 Amending Chapter 14 of the Code
to prohibit parking on portions of Waterloo Drive.
B295-00 Amending Chapter 14 of the Code
to prohibit parking on both sides of Westwinds Drive near
Westwinds
Park.
B296-00 Calling for bids for the construction
of sanitary sewer improvements known as the Cow Branch Pump
Station,
force man and outfall, and trunk sewers CB-4 and CB-5.
B297-00 Authorizing application and
execution of FTA grant documents for FY 2001.
B298-00 Approving the final plat of
Russell Subdivision, Plat 2.
B299-00 Approving the final plat of
Ewing Industrial Park, Plat 5; authorizing a performance contract.
B300-00 Approving the final plat of
The Highlands, Plat 12-C, a replat of The Highlands, Plat 12-B.
B301-00 Approving the final plat of
Victoria South, Plat 2; authorizing a performance contract.
B302-00 Rezoning property located on
the south side of Clark Lane, east of Crump Lane from Districts A-1,
R-2,
and O-P to Districts C-P and O-P.
B303-00 Authorizing construction of
12-inch water main serving Spring Creek, Plat 1; authorizing payment of
differential
costs; appropriating funds.
B304-00 Calling for bids for the relocation
and upgrade of water main along Route B from Vandiver Drive to
Business
Loop 70; appropriating funds.
B305-00 Accepting grants of easements
for electric utility purposes.
B306-00 Amending the agreement with
the State of Missouri to receive additional funding for the HIV
Prevention
Program; appropriating funds.
B307-00 Discontinuing the Computer Advisory
Committee; establishing the Internet Citizens Advisory Group;
adopting
a Statement of Purpose for the City's web page.
B308-00 Amending Chapter 18 of the City
Code as it relates to pensions for firefighters.
B309-00 Appropriating funds collected
from the sale of the Centennial History Book to offset publication costs.
B310-00 Accepting a Missouri Police
Chiefs Association Step Grant; appropriating funds.
B312-00 Authorizing an agreement with
Central Missouri Counties Human Development Corporation for the
purchase
and lease of city-owned property located at Rangeline and Wilkes.
B313-00 Amending Chapter 19 of the Code
relating to Personnel Policies, Procedures, Rules and Regulations.
B314-00 Amending the FY 2000 Classification
Plan and adopting the FY 2001 Pay Plan.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
A) Intra-Departmental Transfer of Funds
Report accepted.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
Mr. Janku asked for a staff report on which provisions of
the sign ordinance will be applicable to the potential extension of Providence
Road north.
Mr. John had a question about large construction dumpsters
that are allowed to be placed in the streets temporarily. He asked if they are
to be put in the public right of way, and if so, should reflectors be required
on them. Mr. John noted that with some of them not being square to the street,
he said these tend to pose a hazard. Mr. Montgomery said he did not have all
of the answers, but Mr. John's point was well-taken and the staff would look
into it. He thought private dumpsters were also being put out that the City does
not service. Mr. Coffman said he had received similar calls relating to two different
subdivisions. He agreed it was a safety hazard and suggested the City have some
sort of standard policy about them. He liked the reflector suggestion.
Mr. Coffman asked if there are sites people can take their
commingled blue bag recycling items to if they do not have a place to put them
on the curb. He had received a call from an apartment dweller. Mr. Campbell suggested
Gerbes where there are two bins, one of which is for commingled recyclables.
Mrs. Crockett suggested Civic Recycling as well.
Mayor Hindman commented that he has received several complaints
regarding a dumpster in the alley between Eighth and Ninth Streets by the parking
garage. The complaints are that it is ugly, dirty, and smelly. He asked the staff
to look into the situation. Mr. Janku thought the Council had authorized the
staff to make the necessary acquisition of property to relocate that dumpster.
Mayor Hindman remarked that the dumpster needs to be serviced more frequently
as well as needing to be relocated elsewhere. Mr. Beck said the staff is still
pursuing the property purchase.
Fred Springsteel, 311 Longfellow, spoke about the status of
the Metro 2020 Plan. He understood there was to be another public hearing on
the current content of the plan. He also commented on the outdoor lighting report.
Mr. Springsteel thought the Planning and Zoning Department should be the enforcer
of such. He did not think it should be referred to a conference between the Planning
and Zoning chair and a member of staff. Mr. Springsteel also noted that he had
written to the Council suggesting a joint work session with the Energy & Environment
Commission's Subcommittee on the lighting ordinance and some Planning and Zoning
Commission members.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia